 |
| |
|
|
Skywise
|
 |
Samara's best friend
Jan 2002
time: 05:31
|
|
These are some cases I found around the inet. I agree some may be made up stories but just the sheer amount of stupid lawsuits listed out there, there must be a lot of them that are true.
Lawsuit -1
In California, a woman sued a grocery store because a 6-pack of beer drooped on her foot. Nothing was broken, but "it hurt". She won the case.
Lawsuit -2 (on of the best)
A construction worker used a circular saw to intentionally cut off one of his hands while on the work site. He claimed that the hand was possessed. Co-workers rushed the man to the hospital and brought the severed hand. At the hospital, the man demanded that the doctors NOT reattach the hand because it was possessed. Now he is suing the doctors and hospital for damages because he claims they should have known that he was psychotic and reattached the hand anyway. Dumb!
Lawsuit 3
A woman is suing the pharmacy that sold her a popular contraceptive jelly - because she ate the stuff on toast and got pregnant anyway.
And, incredibly, many legal experts are saying she's got an excellent chance of collecting!
"The woman is a complete idiot," said one attorney who asked that we not use his name. "How bright can you be if you think eating a vaginal gel will prevent conception?
"But certain aspects of the case involve truth in labeling and false advertising issues. She may not collect but she'll make a lot of noise and trouble. People are down on lawyers anyway. They think we waste time and money on frivolous lawsuits. This isn't going to help our public relations any."
A spokesman for the unnamed mom-and-pop drugstore says he's shocked and angry that such a case could ever be taken seriously. "All she has to do is open the box and read the directions," says the spokesman. "Next thing you know someone will come after us because they couldn't stick things together with their toothpaste.
"I can just imagine some moron saying: 'It's paste, isn't it? Why can't I glue these papers onto my bulletin board?'"
But attorneys for Mrs. Chyton say she was swindled and lied to by implication and they intend to make the pharmacy pay $500,000 for the hardship the woman will have to endure.
"It says right on it 'jelly,'" says Mrs. Chyton, a former model who was once a cheerleader for a popular professional basketball team.
"And they kept it on the shelf just two aisles from the food section. I know, now, that the directions say it should be used vaginally with a condom.
"But who has time to sit around reading directions these days - especially when you're sexually aroused?
"The company should call it something else and the pharmacy shouldn't sell it without telling each and every customer who buys it that eating it won't prevent you from getting pregnant."
As bizarre as it sounds, the pharmacy could wind up losing the lawsuit.
"It's hard for businesses to avoid troublesome lawsuits," said another attorney.
"With the courts bending over backwards to please consumer groups, the temper of the times is perfect for these crackpots to bring legal action against businesses - even a moronic legal action like this."
OMG! What is this world comin to!!
It is too easy today to make money for being stupid.
Spec.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
In most jurisdictioons you can sue for anything . . I don't doubt that you could find lawsuits against aliens for conducting medical experiments, if you looked hard enough.
Then the system kicks in and 99.9% of these crazy suits get nowhere.
Many jurisdictions have procedures, that I think are less common in the US, requiring a losing plaintiff to pretty routinely pay the costs of the defendent from the lawsuit. It can be a pretty big club against the truly frivolous.
Oh and you don't need to trot out crazy Canadian lawsuits, I know they exist. The threat of having to pay costs deters but does not eliminate these types of suit
-------------------------------------------
Oh and the lady that had beer fall on her should win if the beer was negligently stacked or whatever. The fact that the damage was minor is irrelevant-- She should win and collect her $1 or $100 or whatever
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
The problem is, people then turn around ans say, because of these frivlous lawsuits, the whole tort system should be revised. That would be a very bad thing indeed. Without tort, we'd live in a much more dangerous society. |
I agree but I think the US needs a Supreme Court decision similar to what the SCC did in Canada where they put a cap on the amount a pain and suffering award can be. They set it at $100,000 in the 1970s for a quadrapelegic and indexed it to the consumer price index to reflect inflation. I believe its somewhere around $300,000 now. With this as the maximum for pain and suffering, it means that people aren't reasonably expecting a big payday for every minor injury. Note that there can still be multi-million dollar awards for lost income, future income or the costs of care but the pain and suffering element will always be measured against the set worst-case limit.
The second thing I think the various states would do well to adopt would be the Canadian approach regarding court costs. I was suprised when I saw a John Stossel ( sp?) where he reported in many US states there are NO negative results for a losing plaintiff that brings a frivolous lawsuit. IN Canada , those costs act as a deterrent-- The only downside is that a person with a legitimate but possibly losing action would not seek recourse to the courts for fear of having to pay costs. That is a real fear but the courts here sometimes do waive costs in circumstances of unsettled law.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flubber
|
|
With a view of the Rockies
Aug 2000
time: 22:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Anything Stossel says should be taken with a mountain of salt. He's been caught multiple times making up his facts.
|
ahh-- I tend to think he is correct regarding how MOST US states treat court costs-- the concpt is confirmed by our very own MTG above
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
MichaeltheGreat
|
|
Apolyton Grand Executioner
|
 |
mooning the house that Ruth built.
Oct 1999
time: 21:31
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Flubber
I agree but I think the US needs a Supreme Court decision similar to what the SCC did in Canada where they put a cap on the amount a pain and suffering award can be. They set it at $100,000 in the 1970s for a quadrapelegic and indexed it to the consumer price index to reflect inflation. I believe its somewhere around $300,000 now. With this as the maximum for pain and suffering, it means that people aren't reasonably expecting a big payday for every minor injury. Note that there can still be multi-million dollar awards for lost income, future income or the costs of care but the pain and suffering element will always be measured against the set worst-case limit.
|
$300,000 for negligently or recklessly inflicted quadroplegia is ridiculous.  Imagine spending 40 or more years of your life that way, for no reason other than the stupidity or recklessness of someone else, and getting a mere 20 dollars a day to "compensate" for all the experiences of life that you are forced to lose do to the actions of another.
Economic loss is nothing - it's subject to all sorts of provability and debate, and in the end, does nothing to "compensate" you, it only sees that you would have had something approaching what you would have had anyway.
And you can combine the two in nasty ways, for example, my brother never had a chance in litigation against the VA medical system (despite repeated hair-raising episodes of butchery) because what are the "economic losses" of a disabled veteran with psych problems? Nobody would hire him anyway, since he was a crippled vet with a screw loose, so his compensible economic value was very low.
Capping certain types of lesser injury claims is one thing, but capping all types of pain and suffering claims, even when there's reckless or grossly negligent conduct resulting in severe injury, is just a subsidy to those who are reckless and grossly negligent. Personally, if that type of system was instituted, I'd be more inclined towards vigilantism.
quote:
I was suprised when I saw a John Stossel ( sp?) where he reported in many US states there are NO negative results for a losing plaintiff that brings a frivolous lawsuit. IN Canada , those costs act as a deterrent-- The only downside is that a person with a legitimate but possibly losing action would not seek recourse to the courts for fear of having to pay costs. That is a real fear but the courts here sometimes do waive costs in circumstances of unsettled law. |
That is correct. "Costs" as defined in US civil law do not include attorney's fees, and do not include generally include expert witness fees unless ordered by the court. If you sucessfully defend an action, you not only suck up your own attorney's fees, and the economic value of your own lost time, but you also suck up large categories of actual costs of litigation which do not fall into the legal definition of "costs." Parties also generally don't pay the costs of the court itself, although jury fees are typically paid in advance by the party requesting a jury trial (in state court litigation, I haven't gotten that far in a Federal court civil matter).
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:31.
Apolyton Time is 00:31. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
31-10-2003 00:09
|